Ironic reasons given the mess with the MAX.

I think the real reason is IAG was able to grab some of Jet's delivery positions. Possibly all 200 will be delivered before Airbus completes their current IAG orders.

JayinKitsap wrote:

I think the real reason is IAG was able to grab some of Jet's delivery positions. Possibly all 200 will be delivered before Airbus completes their current IAG orders.

Or, you know, the reason stated by the person making the decision. But what would they know about it?

The fact he needs to defend that order tells all you need to know.

JayinKitsap wrote:

I think the real reason is IAG was able to grab some of Jet's delivery positions. Possibly all 200 will be delivered before Airbus completes their current IAG orders.

Bingo. When I looked at the IAG order, versus the lost Jet Airways order, it was a -5 difference in total.

enilria wrote:

Ironic reasons given the mess with the MAX.

Indeed. To order such a dubious aircraft would require some serious discounts.

The A320NEO is currently flying all over the world. The 737 MAX is just filling up parking lots with lots of angry customers.

So they buy a plane that is grounded because the competition is slightly delayed.......thats like buying a heater because its too hot.

Probably would've been better to say nothing or if asked about the order just say that historically Boeing and IAG have been strong partners and will continue to be so moving forward.

enilria wrote:

Ironic reasons given the mess with the MAX.

I think he was referring to the mess with A32x, GTF and LEAP-1A production.

bgm wrote:

enilria wrote:

Ironic reasons given the mess with the MAX.

Indeed. To order such a dubious aircraft would require some serious discounts.

The A320NEO is currently flying all over the world. The 737 MAX is just filling up parking lots with lots of angry customers.

Not so long ago, Airbus had quite a glider collection piled up at Toulouse themselves,
so Airbus has been wise not to "scoreboard" over the 737 mess

JayinKitsap wrote:

I think the real reason is IAG was able to grab some of Jet's delivery positions. Possibly all 200 will be delivered before Airbus completes their current IAG orders.

You do realise IAGs order assuming it does get firmed is for deliveries between 2023-2027 this has nothing at all to do with Jets demise and their deliveries most of which fell before IAGs will start to be delivered

Sooner787 wrote:

bgm wrote:

enilria wrote:

Ironic reasons given the mess with the MAX.

Indeed. To order such a dubious aircraft would require some serious discounts.

The A320NEO is currently flying all over the world. The 737 MAX is just filling up parking lots with lots of angry customers.

Not so long ago, Airbus had quite a glider collection piled up at Toulouse themselves,
so Airbus has been wise not to "scoreboard" over the 737 mess

They had some serious issues with 1 out of the 2 engine providers. Hardly compares to hundreds of an entire aircraft type grounded because of 2 fatal crashes. Of course Airbus want the duopoly
to continue but let’s call a spade a spade here.

The issue is that the CEO ordered a non airworthy aircraft, not that he ordered an American aircraft. Is this the first time a large western airline/conglomerate has ordered a non airworthy aircraft?

Walsh has every right to buy whatever he wants. I plan to fly other carriers until there’s enough statistical evidence that the jets are safe.

SEU wrote:

So they buy a plane that is grounded because the competition is slightly delayed.......thats like buying a heater because its too hot.

more likley they arent pleased with the alots they have for the a320 nd the jet airways slots are open. the max should be up and flying again within a few months anyway,

zkojq wrote:

The issue is that the CEO ordered a non airworthy aircraft, not that he ordered an American aircraft. Is this the first time a large western airline/conglomerate has ordered a non airworthy aircraft?

by the time it'll be delivered, it'll be airworthy.

AirlineCritic wrote:

Walsh has every right to buy whatever he wants. I plan to fly other carriers until there’s enough statistical evidence that the jets are safe.

Lol. That’s like the guy on here last year that said the 737NG was too new, and he was waiting for them to be proven....
I don’t think anyone sane is going to be worried about safety on the MAX once it’s ungrounded. I’m stoked about my first ride on one as soon as Alaska takes devliery!

musman9853 wrote:

zkojq wrote:

The issue is that the CEO ordered a non airworthy aircraft, not that he ordered an American aircraft. Is this the first time a large western airline/conglomerate has ordered a non airworthy aircraft?

by the time it'll be delivered, it'll be airworthy.

Of course... If it wasn't airworthy, it wouldn't get delivered...

musman9853 wrote:

zkojq wrote:

The issue is that the CEO ordered a non airworthy aircraft, not that he ordered an American aircraft. Is this the first time a large western airline/conglomerate has ordered a non airworthy aircraft?

by the time it'll be delivered, it'll be airworthy.

Or, if not, IAG will walk away. It's a simple business decision.

No need for conspiracy theories.

I think he is justifying himself more for the public perception of BA (which is already at an all-time low) of having ordered an aircraft which to the average person is so dangerous and made by the corner cutting Boeing because they got a cracking deal. So I don't think it's for aviation geeks like the people of this forum.

SO a 70 day delay by Airbus (Due to engine delays) is not good compared to an unlimited delay getting the MAX flying again? STrange times we live in.

zkojq wrote:

Is this the first time a large western airline/conglomerate has ordered a non airworthy aircraft?

Any order for an aircraft made before the regulators certify the type would be for a non-airworthy aircraft, so it would seem a frequent occurrence!

Sooner787 wrote:

bgm wrote:

enilria wrote:

Ironic reasons given the mess with the MAX.

Indeed. To order such a dubious aircraft would require some serious discounts.

The A320NEO is currently flying all over the world. The 737 MAX is just filling up parking lots with lots of angry customers.

Not so long ago, Airbus had quite a glider collection piled up at Toulouse themselves,
so Airbus has been wise not to "scoreboard" over the 737 mess

Are you seriously comparing the two issues as similar?

goosebayguy wrote:

SO a 70 day delay by Airbus (Due to engine delays) is not good compared to an unlimited delay getting the MAX flying again? STrange times we live in.

There is no delay for IAG presuming MAX delivers by its 2023 deadline.

Bottom line is Airbus now knows it will be competing for IAG's narrowbody business going forward.

I just don't understand the backlashing here on a.net of Willie Walsh, why exactly is that the case?

Is it because some don't like success or for that matter successful people?

Willie Walsh has been a superb CEO of British Airways and is an excellent CEO of the International Airlines Group and he will no doubt go down in history as being one of best if not the best CEO's British Airways has ever had, and I'm old enough to remember everyone of them unlike many on here.

The overall changes he made at British Airways we're essential to make the airline more competitive, Willie Walsh is a totally competent person who knows the aviation industry from top to bottom and he has a proven record at Aer Lingus as well as at British Airways and now at IAG.

With record profits British Airways is in a much better situation thanks to Willie Walsh.

But then there are those armchair CEO's here on a.net who seem to think that they know better!

And the aircraft cannot go to T5 at LHR.

Cunard, I couldn’t agree with you more. Boeing’s future success in building passenger aircraft is somewhat at risk if they can’t get MAX back in the air and “certified” as safe. And WW has done a pretty decent job both at BA and IAG. Some of you armchair CEOs have gone a bit over the edge with conspiracy theories (quite popular these days). WW likely got a killer deal for IAG and wanted to remind Airbus that they’re not the only game in town anymore. Besides, there is a decades long relationship between BA and Boeing which has been successful commercially AND safe for the most part.

Boeing will get the MAX flying again; their reputation and future viability as a commercial airplane manufacturer depends on it to an extent. Everyone please take a deep breath.

Cunard wrote:

I just don't understand the backlashing here on a.net of Willie Walsh, why exactly is that the case?

Is it because some don't like success or for that matter successful people?

Willie Walsh has been a superb CEO of British Airways and is an excellent CEO of the International Airlines Group and he will no doubt go down in history as being one of best if not the best CEO's British Airways has ever had, and I'm old enough to remember everyone of them unlike many on here.

The overall changes he made at British Airways we're essential to make the airline more competitive, Willie Walsh is a totally competent person who knows the aviation industry from top to bottom and he has a proven record at Aer Lingus as well as at British Airways and now at IAG.

With record profits British Airways is in a much better situation thanks to Willie Walsh.

But then there are those armchair CEO's here on a.net who seem to think that they know better!

From a PR perspective, why would an airline want to 'connect' to an aircraft globally grounded, the centre of new and / or re-hashed, negative media on almost a daily basis. It's not even as if it's a conditional or unconditional order. It's an LOI, so no firm pricing or delivery dates.

The gains from the LOI announcement are one-sided. For Boeing.

Is WW a candidate to head up Boeing now?

musman9853 wrote:

zkojq wrote:

The issue is that the CEO ordered a non airworthy aircraft, not that he ordered an American aircraft. Is this the first time a large western airline/conglomerate has ordered a non airworthy aircraft?

by the time it'll be delivered, it'll be airworthy.

By the time it`s delivered, Walsh may have moved on.

bgm wrote:

enilria wrote:

Ironic reasons given the mess with the MAX.

Indeed. To order such a dubious aircraft would require some serious discounts.

The A320NEO is currently flying all over the world. The 737 MAX is just filling up parking lots with lots of angry customers.

The NEO was filling up quite a few parking lots itself for a long time.

smartplane wrote:

Cunard wrote:

I just don't understand the backlashing here on a.net of Willie Walsh, why exactly is that the case?

Is it because some don't like success or for that matter successful people?

Willie Walsh has been a superb CEO of British Airways and is an excellent CEO of the International Airlines Group and he will no doubt go down in history as being one of best if not the best CEO's British Airways has ever had, and I'm old enough to remember everyone of them unlike many on here.

The overall changes he made at British Airways we're essential to make the airline more competitive, Willie Walsh is a totally competent person who knows the aviation industry from top to bottom and he has a proven record at Aer Lingus as well as at British Airways and now at IAG.

With record profits British Airways is in a much better situation thanks to Willie Walsh.

But then there are those armchair CEO's here on a.net who seem to think that they know better!

From a PR perspective, why would an airline want to 'connect' to an aircraft globally grounded, the centre of new and / or re-hashed, negative media on almost a daily basis. It's not even as if it's a conditional or unconditional order. It's an LOI, so no firm pricing or delivery dates.

The gains from the LOI announcement are one-sided. For Boeing.

Is WW a candidate to head up Boeing now?

Because the downside of the short term PR is likely a sound financial and commerical decision. This isnt Air Zimbabwe or some two-bit state carrier, this is a massive, profitable operation that continues to post record profits.

People have already forgotten about IAG and the MA'. Ask a BA passenger and they won't know Jack (heck, most dont even know what IAG is).

So other than the emotional fanboys and armchair geniuses here who are crying conspiracy, no one cares.

RandWkop wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

zkojq wrote:

The issue is that the CEO ordered a non airworthy aircraft, not that he ordered an American aircraft. Is this the first time a large western airline/conglomerate has ordered a non airworthy aircraft?

by the time it'll be delivered, it'll be airworthy.

By the time it`s delivered, Walsh may have moved on.

WW is actually an LH group plant who is going to saddle IAG with the MAX (clearly unsound decision) and then bolt.

Alert the presses!

No one here seems to remember delivery delays MAX customers (and other Boeing customers) were facing prior to the grounding of the MAX. The problems regarding LEAP 1-A were mentioned above. But the -1B had it's fair share. Late deliveries and leaking seals... And then there was a certain Spirit over the production process. The Spirit of late deliveries of fuselages...
Oooh ooops, my tea is ready

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-A920F met Tapatalk

Cunard wrote:

I just don't understand the backlashing here on a.net of Willie Walsh, why exactly is that the case?

Is it because some don't like success or for that matter successful people?

Willie Walsh has been a superb CEO of British Airways and is an excellent CEO of the International Airlines Group and he will no doubt go down in history as being one of best if not the best CEO's British Airways has ever had, and I'm old enough to remember everyone of them unlike many on here.

The overall changes he made at British Airways we're essential to make the airline more competitive, Willie Walsh is a totally competent person who knows the aviation industry from top to bottom and he has a proven record at Aer Lingus as well as at British Airways and now at IAG.

With record profits British Airways is in a much better situation thanks to Willie Walsh.

But then there are those armchair CEO's here on a.net who seem to think that they know better!

You're making too much sense. Basically there are a good deal of hurt feelings over this large order.

godsbeloved wrote:

No one here seems to remember delivery delays MAX customers (and other Boeing customers) were facing prior to the grounding of the MAX. The problems regarding LEAP 1-A were mentioned above. But the -1B had it's fair share. Late deliveries and leaking seals... And then there was a certain Spirit over the production process. The Spirit of late deliveries of fuselages...
Oooh ooops, my tea is ready

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-A920F met Tapatalk

But those aren't impacting IAG. Even more reason for the large airlines to diversify.

Olddog wrote:

The fact he needs to defend that order tells all you need to know.

All it tells you is that vexatious claims have been made about the reasons IAG ordered the MAX and that Walsh feels the need to clarify. He can hardly be blamed for doing so - reading some media reports, you'd be forgiven for thinking that BA had ordered some kind of death trap simply because it was cheap.

I read that piece five times and I couldn't find a single sentence within that indicates WW is justifying this order, much less defending it. How do people come up with that interpretation of it? All I get is a not so subtle middle finger to Airbus as he justifies why he didn't call them in the first place.

Revelation wrote:

enilria wrote:

Ironic reasons given the mess with the MAX.

I think he was referring to the mess with A32x, GTF and LEAP-1A production.

As opposed to the 737Max units without engines & delayed due to production issues with the Leap-1B. Which BTW are based on the Leap-1A.

rbavfan wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I think he was referring to the mess with A32x, GTF and LEAP-1A production.

As opposed to the 737Max units without engines & delayed due to production issues with the Leap-1B. Which BTW are based on the Leap-1A.

The facts show that IAG is ordering 737s in 2019 for 2023 delivery due to Airbus delivery delays in 2019 and earlier.

It is a given that there is irony and some opportunism in the situation.

Other than that, why is this so hard to unpack?

If IAG just gives more business to Airbus, why would Airbus try harder to meet IAG's needs?

If IAG just gives more business to Airbus, what fleet diversity would IAG have to fall back on if Airbus should have an unexpected grounding?

If you want to find more irony, consider that it is once dominant Boeing relying on the fleet diversity argument to sell airplanes.

AFAIK, this is a letter of intent or some other non-binding statement to buy aircraft. If Boeing get the Max into an airworthy state within a certain timeframe (eg end of 2019), then it will convert into a binding contract to buy the aircraft. If Boeing cannot get the Max airworthy within a few months, then the letter of intent just becomes little more than a press release and IAG can go back to negotiating with Airbus and Boeing for a formal aircraft order.

This had similarities to Ryanair in late 2001. Shortly after 9-11, there was a drastic decline in passengers flying, airlines stopped ordering any new aircraft and aircraft manufacturers panicked about the lack of new business. Ryanair placed a large order for 737-800s at bargain prices, betting confidence to fly would return amongst ordinary passengers - it did and the cheap aircraft allowed Ryanair to become a major airline

If the Max gets fixed soon, IAG get aircraft early at bargain prices. If the Max cannot be fixed, then they end up placing an order with Airbus 9 months later than they would have done otherwise

Boeing has plenty of resources and if necessary can call on the US Govt for a bailout if absolutely essential to their survival. Fixing the Max soon seems well within their ability

WW is taking a modest commercial risk in return for a very large reward. Capitalism tends to reward this approach

When the herd goes all in one direction, there often is great opportunity in going against the flow. I am completely confident that WW got the deal of a lifetime. He knows, as do all reasonable observers, that the MAX WILL be cleared and go on to be a very successful airliner. He made a very smart move.

SEPilot wrote:

When the herd goes all in one direction, there often is great opportunity in going against the flow. I am completely confident that WW got the deal of a lifetime. He knows, as do all reasonable observers, that the MAX WILL be cleared and go on to be a very successful airliner. He made a very smart move.

If he got better than Ryanair, dont Boeing have to compensate under best deal clause similar to Southwest's? Or how true is this?

But if true, does this really make sense for Boeing, or was the deal just not as good as everyone believes??

but then if that's the case he's answerable to BoD and Shareholders for not getting best deal, value for shareholders etc etc??

Pudelhund wrote:

https://skift.com/2019/07/12/british-airways-parents-boeing-737-max-order-is-prompted-by-more-than-just-price-ceo/

IAG SA Chief Executive Officer Willie Walsh said frustration with Airbus SE over late jetliner deliveries was a factor in his decision to place a $24 billion order for Boeing Co.’s grounded 737 Max model.

Cost and a desire to have a mixed narrow-body fleet weren’t the only considerations in the purchase, with IAG experiencing a 70-day delay on average for handovers of the A320neo aircraft, which competes with the Max, the CEO said in an interview.

That's what you call a steaming pile of corporate hogWalsh.

What I do believe is that they very likely managed to get a once-in-a-lifetime deal from Boeing for these frames and with a much sooner delivery date than Airbus could ever have offered. And if the MAX cluster gets out of hand, well, it's only an LOI.

Also a handy way of keeping Airbus honest.

In any way, if they eventually get their MAXes on schedule (by which time the popular outrage will likely have been almost forgotten), I think it will have been a very smart move.

Cunard wrote:

I just don't understand the backlashing here on a.net of Willie Walsh, why exactly is that the case?

Is it because some don't like success or for that matter successful people?

Willie Walsh has been a superb CEO of British Airways and is an excellent CEO of the International Airlines Group and he will no doubt go down in history as being one of best if not the best CEO's British Airways has ever had, and I'm old enough to remember everyone of them unlike many on here.

The overall changes he made at British Airways we're essential to make the airline more competitive, Willie Walsh is a totally competent person who knows the aviation industry from top to bottom and he has a proven record at Aer Lingus as well as at British Airways and now at IAG.

With record profits British Airways is in a much better situation thanks to Willie Walsh.

But then there are those armchair CEO's here on a.net who seem to think that they know better!

People just don't like the MAX. Walsh ordered it so they bash him for that.

I do not remember WW ever being vocal about the delays to their initial batch of 787s. He did express his annoyance with RR last year over the T1000 engine issues...could be another reason IAG got the 779s.

Last year he was quoted that the reason Level was flying the A330 was because of lack of 787 pilots. So, great deal aside, it's a smart move for IAG to diversify their fleet.

Rgds

Cunard wrote:

I just don't understand the backlashing here on a.net of Willie Walsh, why exactly is that the case?

Is it because some don't like success or for that matter successful people?

Willie Walsh has been a superb CEO of British Airways and is an excellent CEO of the International Airlines Group and he will no doubt go down in history as being one of best if not the best CEO's British Airways has ever had, and I'm old enough to remember everyone of them unlike many on here.

The overall changes he made at British Airways we're essential to make the airline more competitive, Willie Walsh is a totally competent person who knows the aviation industry from top to bottom and he has a proven record at Aer Lingus as well as at British Airways and now at IAG.

With record profits British Airways is in a much better situation thanks to Willie Walsh.

But then there are those armchair CEO's here on a.net who seem to think that they know better!

And at an all time low as far as pax are concerned.

I don't get the obsession with screwing the pax into oblivion to turn more (read: record) profit. Same with LH. Corners are cut everywhere but, we. must. make. MORE. profit.

Were you thinking that when the very 1st Max was delivered?

Let's be honest, everybody was.
Which is why, no, the ungrounding won't mean anything in some people's eyes.

Let's be fair to those that still won't trust the Max for a little while yet.

As for the order (well, the nearly, might be, order). I think it is risky, and I think the chances of all or most of the airlines in question are unlikely to want a completely different fleet.

You have to play the manufacturers off against each other. Willy often does it.
He tried to get prices of A380s reduced with a different style of game playing. Never worked.
So perhaps he has decided to go one further with the game playing this time (probably learning from a large shareholder).
Well it worked. Airbus were straight away making waves to his desk. Please please, let us have a chance to fight for this order.

What's the betting Airbus and Willy are having a lovely chat over breakfast right now?

I still think you will find this order of 737s doesn't come to fruition, and magically ol' Willy makes a larger Airbus order.

I could be wrong, but we all have these ideas don't we. A bit like those that think Maxs must automatically be safe if they are flying!

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk